N E W S
Atherton hires efficiency experts to scrutinize operations By Renee Batti Almanac News Editor
T
wo consulting firms have been hired to review the town of Atherton’s police, building, and public works departments to analyze their operations and suggest ways to improve the quality and effectiveness of the services they provide residents. The Atherton City Council on Feb. 16 voted 4-0, with Kathy McKeithen absent, to autho-
rize agreements with the firms to conduct the “organizational effectiveness and efficiency” studies, which were recommended by interim City Manager John Danielson. The review of police services, the Communications Center, and related services by the firm PMC will cost a maximum of $25,000, according to Mr. Danielson. Interwest Consulting will review the building and public works departments and related
services at a cost capped at $48,000, Mr. Danielson said in a staff report. The money, which was not budgeted for the current fiscal year, would come from cost savings from other areas of the budget, particularly from salary savings in the city manager’s office, he said. Mr. Danielson said the reviews are critical to his being able to live up to the commitment he made when he was hired — to
CITY OF MENLO PARK LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK CONSIDERATION OF A PROPERTY CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK FOR THE CONVEYANCE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 777, 785, 787, 791, 801, 811, AND 821 HAMILTON AVENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community Development Agency of the City of Menlo Park (the “Agency”) and the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Menlo Park will hold a joint public hearing on March 1, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard) in the City Council Chambers located at 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, California. The hearing is being conducted in compliance with the requirements of Section 33433 of the California Health and Safety Code. The hearing may be continued from time to time until completed. Any person desiring the opportunity to be heard will be afforded an opportunity to do so. The Agency owns an approximately two acre site commonly known as 777, 785, 787, 791, 801, 811, and 821 Hamilton Avenue in the City of Menlo Park (the “Property”). In furtherance of the Las Pulgas Community Development Plan and the goal of increasing Menlo Park’s supply of quality affordable housing, the Agency desires to convey the Property to the Housing Authority of the City of Menlo Park (the “Housing Authority”) for the future development of a mixed-use development potentially consisting of for-sale housing units, including affordable housing, commercial and retail space, and related on-site and off-site improvements (the “Proposed Development”). To implement the Proposed Development on the Property, the Agency proposes to enter into a Property Conveyance Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Housing Authority providing for the sale of the Property by the Agency to the Housing Authority, and to establish the process for the Housing Authority to determine the development scope of the Proposed Development, including the number of affordable housing units, and select a third-party developer to develop the Proposed Development. The purpose of this hearing is to consider approval of the Agreement and the disposition of the Property to the Housing Authority. The Agreement does not commit the City Council to grant any land use approval necessary for the development of the Proposed Development. Pursuant to Section 15004(b)(2)(A) of the Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Agreement is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because the future use of the Property for the Proposed Development is conditioned upon CEQA compliance. Any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Agreement, to the sale to the Housing Authority of the Property, or who deny the regularity of this proceeding or wish to speak on any issue raised by the Agreement may appear at the hearing and will be afforded an opportunity to state their objections. If any person desires to challenge in court the approval and execution of the proposed Agreement, the contemplated sale of the Property to the Housing Authority, or any proceedings in connection therewith, they may be limited to raising only those issues that they or someone else raised at the hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Agency or the City Council at, or prior to, the hearing. Written correspondence on this matter may be addressed to the Agency and City Council, c/o of the City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, at the address set forth below. As required by Section 33433 of the California Health and Safety Code, copies of the Agreement and a summary of the proposed transaction set forth in the Agreement are available at the offices of the City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, California, 94025, for public inspection and copying at a cost not to exceed the cost of duplication. Further information regarding this hearing may be obtained by contacting the City’s Housing Division at (650) 330-6724. DATED: February 9, 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK _______________/s/_____________________ Margaret S. Roberts, Agency Secretary
DATES OF PUBLICATION: February 15 and 22, 2011 10 N The Almanac N February 23, 2011
“turn over every rock” to ensure the public’s money is being spent as efficiently as possible. As part of his contract agreement, Mr. Danielson will not apply for the permanent city manager position. Instead, one of his key roles as interim manager — a job he began Jan. 3 — is to help the town address its dire financial situation. Atherton is facing a structural budgetary deficit of about $1 million that the council, staff, and a citizen advisory committee have been struggling to whittle down. Although the reviews will
be an additional draw on an already tight budget, the council appeared confident that the money will be wisely spent. The town “will end up with recommendations that will significantly (improve) our budget,” Mayor Jim Dobbie said. Councilwoman Elizabeth Lewis endorsed the reviews as “an excellent approach” to addressing the town’s financial woes, and Councilman Jerry Carlson noted that the process should help Mr. Danielson with his mission “to get our house in financial order.” A
FBI is also looking at DA’s office, sources say By Renee Batti Almanac News Editor
A
source recently interviewed by the FBI has revealed that the apparent investigation by the federal agency isn’t limited to the town of Atherton, but includes the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office as well. Since late January, the FBI has been interviewing Atherton residents and others about matters involving the town of Atherton, according to several sources. But after the Almanac reported the apparent investigation, another reliable source contacted the newspaper to talk about being interviewed by two FBI agents. That source said the federal law enforcement agency is seeking people who have information about possible misconduct, or who have witnessed possible misconduct, by the District Attorney’s Office. The source spoke on condition of anonymity. County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe wasn’t buying the allegation that his office is being investigated. “This whole FBI thing has been manufactured ... there’s no FBI investigation, in my belief,” he said. “There certainly has been nobody (who contacted) us, and that’s a standard procedure the FBI would follow.” Noting that interviewing someone doesn’t constitute an investigation, he added: “There’s nothing to investigate involving us. What would it be? ... There’s been some pretty unfair coverage of the District Attorney’s Office and the men and women who work hard in it.” ... There’ve been some misconceptions put out there that have damaged the reputation of the office.”
Atherton resident Peter Carpenter acknowledged playing a role in the amatter, but noted that it was only as “the switchboard” helping to connect several people with the federal agency. Several people who felt they had evidence of wrongdoing came to him for advice, he said, and because he has a number of contacts within federal agencies, he was able to help. “My role was simply to identify an appropriate FBI person to whom that person could speak.” Former finance director John Johns, who successfully sued the town for wrongful termination and currently has a complaint filed against the police department, said he was interviewed about his experiences with the town of Atherton in late January by an agent in the San Francisco office of the FBI. And an Atherton resident who did not wish to be identified acknowledged that he, too, had been interviewed about his experiences. Julianne Sohn, a spokeswoman with the San Francisco office of the FBI, said that as a matter of policy she could not confirm or deny that an investigation is taking place. Mayor Jim Dobbie said he knows nothing about an FBI investigation of town matters, nor does anyone he has spoken to. “But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening,” he added. Councilwoman Kathy McKeithen, who has publicly criticized the town for not hiring neutral outside investigators when public officials are accused of possible wrongdoing, could not be reached for comment. In the past year, three council members have been subjects of interSee FBI, page 12